Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook No. 13, March, 2019. pp. 81-95 Political Education in Times of Political Apathy and Extreme Political Pathos as Global Ways of Life Marianna Papastephanou* Locating political education in a global time of pathos and apathy, this article explores some complexities that derive from various notions of human distance and aff ect potentialities of democracy as a way of life. It begins with a diagnosis of current, global realities and discusses the philosophical act of diagnosis as such. The operations of (a)pathetics thus singled out are then crit- ically connected to Friedrich Nietzsche’s ‘pathos of distance’, Michel Fou- cault’s visit to Japan and William James’ essay on ‘what makes life signifi cant’ in which he critiques an accomplished ‘democratic’ utopia of his times. The conclusion indicates how the registered complexities present political education with further challenges of (non)translatability. Keywords: democracy; passion; inclusion; aff ect; distance; translation; normativity Introduction The title of this article locates political education in the globalized world at a given time and demarcates this time with an opposition: apathy and pathos. Against the normative ex- pectation that democracy as a way of life will become global to lead the world toward better prospects, it seems that major pathologies related to this opposition and undermining demo- cratic potentialities gain cross-cultural and transnational sway. Yet, contra such realities, there is by now a global educational-theoretical consensus, valuable, in my view, that schooling should cultivate democracy in one way or another. From John Dewey’s commitment to democracy through Jacques Derrida’s qualifi ed welcome of the implicit normativity of a democracy to come, the ‘power of all’ and its politics, its ＊ Professor of Philosophy of Education, University of Cyprus, Department of Education, Cyprus and Professor II, University of Oslo, Department of Education, Norway. e-mail: [email protected] pp081-095_02_PAPASTE_責.indd081-095_02_PAPASTE_責.indd 8811 22019/04/27019/04/27 117:07:537:07:53 82 Marianna Papastephanou defi nitional inclusivism1 and its anti-exclusivist and anti-fi nalist vision is by now a philosoph- ical and pedagogical common topos. As another such instance of convergence, consider Stan- ley Cavell’s perfectionist ideal of a democracy “that in our everyday life is always still to be achieved” (Saito, 2012, 284). This ideal could be served by using language to resist the rhet- oric of accountability (Saito, 2006). The underlying philosophy chimes with the dependence of democracy upon a certain distance from one’s own culture and upon considering the “na- tive” always in “transition, by and through language, in processes of translation”, constituting “a Cavellian education for global citizenship” (Saito, 2007, 261). Democracy requires the ethic of the spatial metaphor of distance and of the arrival at a juncture for the other: “The translator normally confronts a gap between meanings for which there is no ultimately satis- factory resolution” (Standish, 2011, 77). This opens a critical space for the translator, “that space where there is no rule to resolve the diffi culty she faces”. Missing such challenges, “the monolingual may be morally blind” (ibid) and, I would add, uncomfortably situated in a democratic way of life that depends on valorizing otherness. Like other, related educational-philosophical visions, the educational cultivation of de- mocracy as a way of life also confronts challenges and obstacles to be overcome prior to the approximation of the recommended ideality. Accountability and the managerial outlook is one such challenge. However, other risks (many of which are well documented in the above sources), often relate not just to the managerial collective subject but also to the whole body politic expected to embrace democracy and live by it. Some such risks may be of an on- to-anthropological register, as they concern the fi nitude and imperfectibility of life, but there are also risks of a socio-political register, risks deriving from globally dispersed ways of liv- ing. In my opinion, a kind of apathy and a kind of pathos are such pernicious pathologies. Let us call all related operations, positive or negative, ‘(a)pathetics’. (A)pathetics as investing or reserving one’s pathos, directing it toward or away from a specifi c object, involves energy and movement. There is a kinetic dimension in what one has learned to repel or to embrace, to pathologize or to sanitize, to join or to stave off . In this vein, (a)pathetic operations in- volve metaphors of disease and cure as well as of proximity and distance. The above granted, the topic of this article could be rephrased into this complex ques- tion: what is the normative task of pedagogy in a spatiotemporality where anti-democratic conditions such as political apathy and extreme political pathos aff ect the demos, that is, the body politic par excellence which, as the collective subject, is expected to embody the politi- cal promise of a better world and of a corresponding education? I do not claim that I can answer this question, but, to explore it more deeply, I begin with metaphors of diagnosis, which I connect with pathos and its absence in the body politic and with the metaphor of ‘pathos of distance’. From this perspective, I read William James’ outlook on a pathos-free accomplished utopia of his times to illustrate some complexities in the (a)pathetics of rela- tional distances and social extremes. 1. Diagnoses Democratic education discourses, like other discourses, often begin with a chronotope, that is, with the slice of history within which and against which the normativity in question is to be deployed. Such beginnings are typically theorized through medical metaphors: diag- pp081-095_02_PAPASTE_責.indd081-095_02_PAPASTE_責.indd 8822 22019/04/27019/04/27 117:07:537:07:53 Political Education in Times of Political Apathy and Extreme Political Pathos as Global Ways of Life 83 noses, disease, symptoms, recovery, melancholy, therapy, blindness, pathologies, pathos and apathy. Diseases aff ect a body, and democracy presupposes the aff ectivity of a specifi c body which is no other than the body politic: its ills and ailments, general as they are, defer the universalizing prospects of a democracy to come. “Indifference and apathy are the signs of a bewildered public” (Saito, 2009, 101). Among other things, this heightens “our existential need to recover political passion” (Saito, 2011, 3). We need this recovery for vigilance against the extreme political pathos that nour- ishes political emotions such as hatred, unjustifi ed anger and blind fear. Surrendering to the absence of commonalities or believing in an absolutized, abstract commonality, annihilating, overlooking, fabricating or inserting distances from others enforces pernicious, new exclu- sionary ideologies.2 We also need attention to subtler and as yet unperceived or under-theo- rized pathologies. These invite redirections of empirical educational research, new research questions about the contemporary world and its priorities, the technological being-in-the world, the passionate attachment to e-entertainment and media. We need to fathom whether such new passions are exclusivist of other ways of living and of those who opt for such al- ternatives. What kind of diverse temporalities operate underneath passionate engagements or withdrawals from segments of reality? How does the early conditioning of the self in digital times perpetuate social divisions, rework or gloss over social distance? Do new educational inequalities emerge from new ways of children’s so-called ‘time management’? Political apa- thy and extreme political pathos may not merely be pathologies but, more alarmingly, new ways of life and generators of new social ontologies (new class divisions, new distributions of the real) framing one’s (e.g. a student’s) experience and politicization of spatiotemporality. The identifi cation of ‘pathologies’, the diagnoses of ‘health’ risks of the global demos, is a very complex matter. Such metaphoric depiction of the real (educational and other) has its own risks, for instance, of pathologizing certain realities or of taking notice only of visible pathologies and risks which have already become real and thematized threats. Aristotle dis- cussed emotions such as fear, anger and sympathy and saw the rhetorical connection of logos (e.g. the logical composition of an argument), with ethos (the character of the speaker, her credibility and trustworthiness) and pathos (e.g. the emotive disposition of the audience). “Pathos means the emotional appeal of an argument” not to rational faculties but to “subjec- tive empathy, [...] passions or strong feelings, whether positive or negative” (Rabaté, 2016, 69). Pathos also entails that suff ering may imaginatively be shared and passion stirred. One danger is the rhetorical, “low appeal to basic passions” (ibid) which creates a distance from logos and a pathologically impassionate public lacking critical distance from demagogues. Diagnoses suff er from the risks involved in the ideological role of metaphoricity. For ex- ample, experts, academics, leaders and other groups within demos have the rhetorical and in- stitutional power to introduce metaphors to followers who invest them with varied semantics, aff ective gratifi cation and pathos. The rhetorical eff ect of the ‘body politic’ metaphor itself has shifted over time; its modern use likens “a